AI-assisted gait analysis holds promise for improving Parkinson's Disease (PD) care, but current clinical dashboards lack transparency and offer no meaningful way for clinicians to interrogate or contest AI decisions. To address this issue, we present Motion2Meaning, a clinician-centered framework that advances Contestable AI through a tightly integrated interface designed for interpretability, oversight, and procedural recourse. Our approach leverages vertical Ground Reaction Force (vGRF) time-series data from wearable sensors as an objective biomarker of PD motor states. The system comprises three key components: a Gait Data Visualization Interface (GDVI), a one-dimensional Convolutional Neural Network (1D-CNN) that predicts Hoehn & Yahr severity stages, and a Contestable Interpretation Interface (CII) that combines our novel Cross-Modal Explanation Discrepancy (XMED) safeguard with a contestable Large Language Model (LLM). Our 1D-CNN achieves 89.0% F1-score on the public PhysioNet gait dataset. XMED successfully identifies model unreliability by detecting a five-fold increase in explanation discrepancies in incorrect predictions (7.45%) compared to correct ones (1.56%), while our LLM-powered interface enables clinicians to validate correct predictions and successfully contest a portion of the model's errors. A human-centered evaluation of this contestable interface reveals a crucial trade-off between the LLM's factual grounding and its readability and responsiveness to clinical feedback. This work demonstrates the feasibility of combining wearable sensor analysis with Explainable AI (XAI) and contestable LLMs to create a transparent, auditable system for PD gait interpretation that maintains clinical oversight while leveraging advanced AI capabilities. Our implementation is publicly available at: https://github.com/hungdothanh/motion2meaning.

GPU prices could follow RAM's big rise Meta is reportedly working on a new AI model called'Avocado' and it might not be open source Mark Zuckerberg has been shaking up the company's AI strategy as it pursues superintelligence. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg speaks during an event at the Biohub Imaging Institute in Redwood City, Calif., Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025. Mark Zuckerberg has for months publicly hinted that he is backing away from open-source AI models. Now, Meta's latest AI pivot is starting to come into focus. The company is reportedly working on a new model, known inside of Meta as Avocado, which could mark a major shift away from its previous open-source approach to AI development.

We investigate how large language models (LLMs) fail when operating as autonomous agents with tool-use capabilities. Using the Kamiwaza Agentic Merit Index (KAMI) v0.1 benchmark, we analyze 900 execution traces from three representative models - Granite 4 Small, Llama 4 Maverick, and DeepSeek V3.1 - across filesystem, text extraction, CSV analysis, and SQL scenarios. Rather than focusing on aggregate scores, we perform fine-grained, per-trial behavioral analysis to surface the strategies that enable successful multi-step tool execution and the recurrent failure modes that undermine reliability. Our findings show that model scale alone does not predict agentic robustness: Llama 4 Maverick (400B) performs only marginally better than Granite 4 Small (32B) in some uncertainty-driven tasks, while DeepSeek V3.1's superior reliability derives primarily from post-training reinforcement learning rather than architecture or size. Across models, we identify four recurring failure archetypes: premature action without grounding, over-helpfulness that substitutes missing entities, vulnerability to distractor-induced context pollution, and fragile execution under load. These patterns highlight the need for agentic evaluation methods that emphasize interactive grounding, recovery behavior, and environment-aware adaptation, suggesting that reliable enterprise deployment requires not just stronger models but deliberate training and design choices that reinforce verification, constraint discovery, and adherence to source-of-truth data.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life and information ecosystems, concerns about their implicit biases continue to persist. While prior work has primarily examined socio-demographic and left--right political dimensions, little attention has been paid to how LLMs align with broader geopolitical value systems, particularly the democracy--authoritarianism spectrum. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to assess such alignment, combining (1) the F-scale, a psychometric tool for measuring authoritarian tendencies, (2) FavScore, a newly introduced metric for evaluating model favorability toward world leaders, and (3) role-model probing to assess which figures are cited as general role-models by LLMs. We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increased favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin. Further, models are found to often cite authoritarian figures as role models, even outside explicit political contexts. These results shed light on ways LLMs may reflect and potentially reinforce global political ideologies, highlighting the importance of evaluating bias beyond conventional socio-political axes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/irenestrauss/Democratic-Authoritarian-Bias-LLMs.

Although persona prompting in large language models appears to trigger different styles of generated text, it is unclear whether these translate into measurable behavioral differences, much less whether they affect decision-making in an adversarial strategic environment that we provide as open-source. We investigate the impact of persona prompting on strategic performance in PERIL, a world-domination board game. Specifically, we compare the effectiveness of persona-derived heuristic strategies to those chosen manually. Our findings reveal that certain personas associated with strategic thinking improve game performance, but only when a mediator is used to translate personas into heuristic values. We introduce this mediator as a structured translation process, inspired by exploratory factor analysis, that maps LLM-generated inventory responses into heuristics. Results indicate our method enhances heuristic reliability and face validity compared to directly inferred heuristics, allowing us to better study the effect of persona types on decision making. These insights advance our understanding of how persona prompting influences LLM-based decision-making and propose a heuristic generation method that applies psychometric principles to LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong translation abilities through prompting, even without task-specific training. However, their effectiveness in dialectal and low-resource contexts remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of LLM-based machine translation (MT) for Sylheti, a dialect of Bangla that is itself low-resource. We evaluate five advanced LLMs (GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1, LLaMA 4, Grok 3, and DeepSeek V3.2) across both translation directions (Bangla $\Leftrightarrow$ Sylheti), and find that these models struggle with dialect-specific vocabulary. To address this, we introduce Sylheti-CAP (Context-Aware Prompting), a three-step framework that embeds a linguistic rulebook, a dictionary (2{,}260 core vocabulary items and idioms), and an authenticity check directly into prompts. Extensive experiments show that Sylheti-CAP consistently improves translation quality across models and prompting strategies. Both automatic metrics and human evaluations confirm its effectiveness, while qualitative analysis reveals notable reductions in hallucinations, ambiguities, and awkward phrasing, establishing Sylheti-CAP as a scalable solution for dialectal and low-resource MT. Dataset link: \href{https://github.com/TabiaTanzin/LLMs-for-Low-Resource-Dialect-Translation-Using-Context-Aware-Prompting-A-Case-Study-on-Sylheti.git}{https://github.com/TabiaTanzin/LLMs-for-Low-Resource-Dialect-Translation-Using-Context-Aware-Prompting-A-Case-Study-on-Sylheti.git}

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has led to impressive performance on a range of tasks, yet advanced instruction following (IF)-especially for complex, multi-turn, and system-prompted instructions-remains a significant challenge. Rigorous evaluation and effective training for such capabilities are hindered by the lack of high-quality, human-annotated benchmarks and reliable, interpretable reward signals. In this work, we introduce AdvancedIF (we will release this benchmark soon), a comprehensive benchmark featuring over 1,600 prompts and expert-curated rubrics that assess LLMs ability to follow complex, multi-turn, and system-level instructions. We further propose RIFL (Rubric-based Instruction-Following Learning), a novel post-training pipeline that leverages rubric generation, a finetuned rubric verifier, and reward shaping to enable effective reinforcement learning for instruction following. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RIFL substantially improves the instruction-following abilities of LLMs, achieving a 6.7% absolute gain on AdvancedIF and strong results on public benchmarks. Our ablation studies confirm the effectiveness of each component in RIFL. This work establishes rubrics as a powerful tool for both training and evaluating advanced IF in LLMs, paving the way for more capable and reliable AI systems.

Grammatical error correction (GEC) is an important task in Natural Language Processing that aims to automatically detect and correct grammatical mistakes in text. While recent advances in transformer-based models and large annotated datasets have greatly improved GEC performance for high-resource languages such as English, the progress has not extended equally. For most Indic languages, GEC remains a challenging task due to limited resources, linguistic diversity and complex morphology. In this work, we explore prompting-based approaches using state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4.1, Gemini-2.5 and LLaMA-4, combined with few-shot strategy to adapt them to low-resource settings. We observe that even basic prompting strategies, such as zero-shot and few-shot approaches, enable these LLMs to substantially outperform fine-tuned Indic-language models like Sarvam-22B, thereby illustrating the exceptional multilingual generalization capabilities of contemporary LLMs for GEC. Our experiments show that carefully designed prompts and lightweight adaptation significantly enhance correction quality across multiple Indic languages. We achieved leading results in the shared task--ranking 1st in Tamil (GLEU: 91.57) and Hindi (GLEU: 85.69), 2nd in Telugu (GLEU: 85.22), 4th in Bangla (GLEU: 92.86), and 5th in Malayalam (GLEU: 92.97). These findings highlight the effectiveness of prompt-driven NLP techniques and underscore the potential of large-scale LLMs to bridge resource gaps in multilingual GEC.

How do Large Language Models understand moral dimensions compared to humans? This first large-scale Bayesian evaluation of market-leading language models provides the answer. In contrast to prior work using deterministic ground truth (majority or inclusion rules), we model annotator disagreements to capture both aleatoric uncertainty (inherent human disagreement) and epistemic uncertainty (model domain sensitivity). We evaluated the best language models (Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek-V3, Llama 4 Maverick) across 250K+ annotations from nearly 700 annotators in 100K+ texts spanning social networks, news and forums. Our GPU-optimized Bayesian framework processed 1M+ model queries, revealing that AI models typically rank among the top 25\% of human annotators, performing much better than average balanced accuracy. Importantly, we find that AI produces far fewer false negatives than humans, highlighting their more sensitive moral detection capabilities.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.